Pages

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Mattogno's "Bunkers" Conspiracy Theory

Author: Sergey Romanov

Carlo Mattogno claimed in his book The Bunkers of Auschwitz that the alleged fact that the term "bunkers" does not appear in the earliest testimonies of Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Rudolf Höss means something ominous:

The first thing to note is that Dragon, at the time of the Soviet deposition, did not yet know the terms ‘Bunker 1’ and ‘Bunker 2,’ allegedly used even by the SS. (p.75)

What strikes us here in this respect, is the use of the term “bunkers I and II.” As we have already seen, the term ‘Bunker’ was coined at Auschwitz during the Judge Jan Sehn’s investigation no later than April 1945. (p.135)

During the trial session of March 11, 1947, Hoess finally adapted himself to the Polish ‘truth’ and its terminology, speaking explicitly of ‘Bunker 1’ and‘Bunker 2’: [...]
The obvious difference between the British and the Polish versions of Hoess’ ‘confessions’ is thus further proof of the fact that they expressed the propaganda orientation of the respective interrogators. (p.139)

Mattogno concocts a whole conspiracy theory - the term "Bunker" was invented by the Poles and adopted by the witnesses. Then it was forced upon even the witnesses who were in the Western Allies' hands, like Aumeier and Hoess.

About this terminology in "Carlo Mattogno, the failed Dragon-slayer" Romanov explains the fact that in the Soviet deposition of Dragon the term "Bunker" is never used (but only "gazovie kameri", "gas chambers") asserting that his statements were translated into Russian with possible errors and "even intentional corruption." Since no former inmate of the Sonderkommando interrogated by the Soviets ever mentions the term "Bunker", it follows that the alleged "conspiracy theory" which he gratuitously attributes to me, is adopted by himself against the Soviet commission of inquiry!

He adds a footnote regarding me accusing him of concocting a conspiracy theory:

Another invention of Romanov. In fact, I merely pointed out that the term "Bunker" appears for the first time in the deposition of Stanisław Jankowski of April 16, 1945 (The Bunkers of Auschwitz, op. cit., p. 75): what does this have to do with "conspiracy theories"?

Unfortunately this response shows Mattogno's dishonesty. First of all, he absolutely did concoct a conspiracy theory as follows from his own quotes above: he did not "merely" point out that the term first appears in Jankowski's testimony. He also drew the explicit conclusion that the term was invented during judge Sehn's investigation, that the invented term was then adopted by the witnesses who thus lied about the term having been used before the camp's liberation, and that the Nazi witnesses were then compelled to adopt the term, and thus also lied about its contemporary usage. That's a pure conspiracy theory: the victors conspired in the invention of the name for the gas chambers in the farmhouses.

Not being content with dishonestly denying being a conspiracist, Mattogno then accuses me of creating a conspiracy theory about why the Soviet protocols of interrogation of Dragon (and Tauber) don't contain the term "bunkers". And again nothing could be further from the truth, since my hypothesis explains the lack of the term by a simple appeal to common sense, without any dishonesty having been involved on any side: hypothetically, the witnesses did mention "bunkers", but the Soviets translated/wrote down "gas chambers" instead of "bunkers" for clarity's sake. The same way they would usually write "dushegubka" (soul-killer) in the protocols mentioning the gas vans instead of "Gaswagen" or "gazovyj avtomobil'". In neither case is any lying or a conspiracy involved, it's just a translation method Mattogno disagrees with.

So, to reiterate: Mattogno did employ a conspiracy theory. I didn't. And then Mattogno denied creating a conspiracy theory and baselessly accused me of creating one. He is clearly dishonest.

Now, while my hypothesis about the Soviet translation methods in case of Dragon and Tauber is the most reasonable explanation, it is based only on indirect evidence. Whereas my debunking of his conspiracy claim about Höss' allegedly evolving bunkers testimony is almost direct: it can be reasonably shown that Höss mentioned the bunkers on 16.04.1946 and they were translated as "dugouts". Here is Mattogno's response:

He argues that Rudolf Hoess used the term "Bunker" before his extradition to Poland (contrary to what I said) and cites an interrogation of the former commandant of Auschwitz on April 16, 1946 where, however, the term "Bunker" does not appear but rather "dugouts one and two". Romanov said: "Obviously "dugouts one and two" are Bunkers 1 and 2, and the translator was clueless about what Hoess meant." The explanation is quite feeble. The fact is that the text does not mention the term "Bunker", and here we are speaking precisely about terminology.

During the interrogation of 1 April 1946 Hoess spoke of "two old farms", and on 11 March 1946 of "two old farmbuildings". These terms correspond to the German Bauernhäuse [sic, correct: Bauernhäuser ~SR], so that the term "dugouts" is explained more by an inappropriate translation of Bauerhaus [sic, correct: Bauernhaus ~SR] than that of "Bunker".

This explanation reads like a parody of a parody of "revisionism".

"Dugout" is one of the direct English translations of the German term "Bunker". Indeed, the very English word "bunker" in the military sense of "dugout" came from German, as the online version of OED confirms:

1947 H. Trevor-Roper Last Days of Hitler iv. 117 A curved stair led downwards to a still deeper and slightly larger bunker. This was..Hitler’s own bunker, the stage on which the last act of the Nazi melodrama was played out.

1949 F. Maclean Eastern Approaches iii. iv. 354 The turf-covered ‘bunkers’ in which the Germans and Ustas̆e had made their last stand.

Also cf. J.E.Kaufmann, C.Donnell, Modern European Military Fortifications, 1870-1950: A Selective Annotated Bibliography, 2004, pp.220-1:

Hence, in context, it is obvious that originally Höss used the term "Bunker" which for a native English speaker made sense as a dugout.

At the same time there is no plausible explanation whatsoever as to how a farmhouse/"Bauernhaus" could have been mistranslated as "dugout" even once, much less several times. Additionally, Höss called them "so-called dugouts", signifying that he was giving a special designation. Farmhouses, on the other hand, are just farmhouses and there was no need to call them "so-called". Mattogno is thus dishonestly grasping at non-existent straws in defense of his wild conspiracy theory.

What's more, Mattogno ignored an even more direct piece of evidence for the fact that Höss used the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity. It's the interrogation of Höss by Major G. Draper on 30.04.1946 (which I didn't cite at the time - but about which Mattogno was absolutely obliged to know, given that it is he who is making far-reaching claims denying whole swaths of history):

[Höss:] ... I had the new Unterfuehrer who had experience in these matters of the burning of the graves and it was for that reason that I recall Moll and he had the job of taking care of Station 5.
Q What do you call Station 5?
A There were four crematories in Birkenau.
Q And one broker? [this was corrected, with the correction slightly misplaced, to:] bunker?
A It is this bunker that I designate as No. 5.
Q Was that bunker midway between two and three crematories?
A Not between, but behind three and four somewhat removed from three and four? [sic]

Whether Draper's use of the word "bunker" stems from Höss' earlier statements or from his own prior knowledge (e.g. from the Tesch trial), Höss' affirmation and use of the term is significant, since "bunker" is not a natural way to describe a generic gas chamber or a farmhouse.

And Bunker 5 is of course the name of Bunker 2 during the Hungarian action (as Höss himself would write later, "Die Anlage II, später als Freianlage oder Bunker V bezeichnet...", M.Broszat (Hrsgb.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, S. 249; which is also important because Höss acknowledges, that the gas chamber had several different designations; and indeed, later in the interrogation he even calls it a "crematorium" - by metonymy).

So there you have it. Höss did use the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity and Mattogno's "scholarship" is once again shown to be nothing but a sloppy and dishonest mess.

38 comments:

You and Mattogno are unintentional comedians if either of you think for an instant that Hoess was referring to anything other than mass graves when he referred to the "so-called dug-outs". Perhaps you both need some English lessons; you can start by learning how this punctuation mark differs from a comma:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

From the dual interrogation of Rudolf Hoess and Otto Moll 16.04.46, 1415 to 1615 [pp. 8-9]:

BROOKHART: How many victims were exterminated in the camp from 1941 on?

MOLL: I don't know the number and I don't think I would be able to give you any number at all as far as the total number of victims goes. I believe Hoess might know that.

BROOKHART: The only thing we are interested in is what you have knowledge of.

MOLL: When I was in charge of these excavations, as I told you about before, together with another comrade, which was confirmed by Hoess today, we put between 30,000 and 40,000 people in those mass graves. It was the most terrible work that could be carried out by any human being.

BROOKHART: Stick to the figures.

MOLL: I don't know who those people were or how they got there. I only excavated the mass graves. I was responsible for burning the bodies right there.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO RUDOLF HOESS:

BROOKHART: How does that figure strike you, Hoess?

HOESS: It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO OTTO MOLL:

MOLL: I could not complete the excavation detail, which I mentioned before, I then got the attack of typhus.

BROOKHART: What do you estimate was the number of bodies you handled?

MOLL: It was later they went thru my crematory plant and I would say between 40,000 and 50,000, that is at the crematory where I was responsible. I was not responsible for the two large crematories, as they were two SS corps Mussfeld and also Foss, who were responsible for the two large cremations and Hoess will remember that.

It's as clear as crystal what Hoess meant. The so-called "dugouts" was the term given to the mass graves at Birkenau during their excavation. The largest ones, numbers "one" and "two", contained over a hundred thousands bodies between them.

When you first quoted the Hoess-Moll interrogation in your January 2010 post, you cut out all mention of the excavations which show that Hoess meant graves—the biggest ones: "one and two". Instead, armed with cherry-picked quotes, you claimed he was referring to Bunkers 1 & 2! A complete howler, or a complete fraud, of shocking proportions.http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/carlo-mattogno-failed-dragon-slayer.html

SR: Hence, in context, it is obvious that originally Höss used the term "Bunker" which for an Englishman made sense as a dugout.

A. Your purported "context" is a complete distortion of the interrogation transcript.B. There was no "Englishman" present at the Hoess-Moll interrogation, just Brookhart [interrogator], Richard B. Sonnenfelt [interpreter] and Alice Meehan [court reporter]. Draper didn't interrogate Hoess until two weeks later!

SR: The use of the word "bunker" (which is not a natural way to describe a generic gas chamber or a farmhouse) by Draper, which was immediately confirmed by Höss, is simply explained by Höss' mention of the term earlier (including the 16.04.1946 interrogation).

"Including"!? All you've presented is the now debunked *Bunker was translated dugouts* nonsense. You have no other "earlier" [i.e. prior to 30.04.46] Hoess mentions of the term.

Also, you neglected to inform your readers that Gerald Draper had heard the term "bunker" from Sigmund Bendel two months earlier during their exchange at the Tesch trial:http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/4abe1efbec19b6ce63d6de8d37e3fe1a.jpg

Bendel also mentioned the "bunker" at the Belsen trial 01.10.45:http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/2e4ca45dfc924fa61b5d1de52c9269af.jpg

The transcripts for Belsen, Tesch and IG-F trials don't mention what language Bendel testified in, but seeing as he was fluent in German it's likely it was that—especially at the Tesch trial, which was a relatively small affair and didn't have the teams of translators present at the other two.

Both the Belsen and Tesch trial transcript recorded him as having said "B/bunker". The translators at these British-run trials didn't go with "dugout", scuppering your translation theory.

SR: "So there you have it. Höss did use the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity ..."

> It's as clear as crystal what Hoess meant. The so-called "dugouts" was the term given to the mass graves at Birkenau during their excavation.

It is indeed crystal clear what Höss meant: the bunkers. The mass graves belonged to the "dugouts", hence were not the dugouts: "two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts". The dugouts AKA the bunkers are where the killing took place, not the graves: "...number of killings in the dugouts where he was working and responsible".

> Perhaps you both need some English lessons; you can start by learning how this punctuation mark differs from a comma:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

Perhaps you need your eyes checked because the transcript clearly has a colon, not a semi-colon.

https://www.fold3.com/image/1/231914546

Moreover, the text I cited (without the colon) is exactly as it is in Overy's book. As is clearly stated in the posting. So maybe it's time for you to treat your reading comprehension problem since it's pretty bad by now, and it's not the first time you've shown inability to comprehend simple English-language texts.

> The largest ones, numbers "one" and "two", contained over a hundred thousands bodies between them.

See, this is another example. I don't know if English is your native language but you surely behave like it isn't. "One and two" can only refer to the "so-called dugouts" and under no circumstances to the previously mentioned graves. The sentence structure doesn't make any sense on your assumption. And yes, the colon is in its proper place, even if the usage is a bit idiosyncratic (which is why Overy omitted it). It simply lists the dugout designations.

> When you first quoted the Hoess-Moll interrogation in your January 2010 post, you cut out all mention of the excavations which show that Hoess meant graves—the biggest ones: "one and two". Instead, armed with cherry-picked quotes, you claimed he was referring to Bunkers 1 & 2! A complete howler, or a complete fraud, of shocking proportions.

Excavations are completely irrelevant, the only fraud here is Mattogno's, and you've been shown to be a moron (again).

> A. Your purported "context" is a complete distortion of the interrogation transcript.

It's not true, it's the only correct interpretation of the transcript.

> "Including"!? All you've presented is the now debunked *Bunker was translated dugouts* nonsense. You have no other "earlier" [i.e. prior to 30.04.46] Hoess mentions of the term.

Such a mention cannot be excluded, hence "including". It is more than probable that there were talks not on the record.

> Also, you neglected to inform your readers that Gerald Draper had heard the term "bunker" from Sigmund Bendel two months earlier during their exchange at the Tesch trial:

OK, this is the first relevant correction in your two otherwise empty comments. I'll take this one into account.

> Both the Belsen and Tesch trial transcript recorded him as having said "B/bunker". The translators at these British-run trials didn't go with "dugout", scuppering your translation theory.

A logic that I would expect from a moron such as you. What happened in one case has zero bearing on the other. IOW a complete non sequitur.

> More precisely: Draper used it and Hoess *literally* parroted it.

A denier will see it that way, of course. As I pointed out in the posting however, "bunker" is not a natural way to refer to a gas chamber or to a farmhouse, so Hoess using the term is significant despite your whining.

> You also concocted a cock and bull story about the Hoess-Moll interrogation, but that's now been exposed.

That only thing that has been exposed is your dumbassery, inability to read and inability to differentiate between punctuation signs.

> He must be still wet behind the ears not to have seen through your complete distortion of the Hoess-Moll interrogation transcript, but the dishonesty, and boy—is it a mighty portion, is all yours.

You have yet to point out any.

> [As this blog's recently gone full-CODOH and comments which expose the moderators' BS are now being deleted, I will also be posting this at RODOH]

Meh. Unlike CODOH, we don't promise an "open debate". And the postings are deleted only when one is a troll or can't go without insulting the blog members.

Final warning: I have tolerated the insults because you at least attempted to argue your case. But continue in this tone and your comments will be deleted.

Yes, they can sign up (registration is free), magnify the image ~10-fold, as I did, and see a colon. At least in Moll's case. I'll check out the Hoess copy when I get back home, not that even a semicolon there would save your laughably nonsensical attempt to rape the English language.

The copy in Moll's file is horrible [as you saw on my link]. That's probably why you're now claiming it's the one on which you relied [which is clearly rubbish as you cited other interrogation docs in Hoess' files, i.a. the Draper one.

But, get your excuses in early doors, you know you'll be needing them after this epic "mistake".

You are simply lying now: as I have already pointed out above, I relied on Overy's edition. When you came up with your silly gambit, I checked the Moll interrogation - to which I actually provided a link.

It looks like a colon. So the accusation of dishonesty was dishonest itself.

That said, I admit when I'm wrong, so in light of the Hoess copy I concede that what I thought to be a colon is a poorly (carbon-)copied semicolon.

2. The semicolon doesn't help the Bunny in the slightest for the following reasons.

a) See, semicolons bind *independent* clauses together. The ones that can serve as sentences all on their own. So the sentence in question should be able to be split into two. Let's see how it works.

The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts.One and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people.

Nope. Doesn't work. Conclusion: whatever punctuation mark was meant to be typed (if any at all), it was not a semicolon. The semicolon is totally out of place here. It was typed erroneously. Grammar demands this.

Perhaps the Bunny needs some English lessons; he can start by learning how this punctuation mark differs from a comma.

b) Punctuation is actually pretty uncertain in the transcripts. One example was even quoted by me: the question sign after a purely declarative sentence by Hoess in the Draper document.

It is easily possible that either "," or ":" was meant to be typed. Indeed, quick googling shows that many (all?) English-language typewriters of the period had ";" and ":" on the same key.

http://venneburg.weebly.com/typewriters.html

So only an utter fool would base far-reaching conclusions on such a flimsy basis.

c) But assuming for a second the Bunny were correct about sticking with the punctuation as is, he's cherry-picking the evidence.He is ignoring the comma after "one and two". This comma means that "amounted" cannot refer to "one and two". (It most obviously refers to people.) And he needs "amounted" to refer to "one and two" to save this crazy Hail Mary pass re: "one and two" referring to the mass graves.

d) Ignoring the punctuation for a second, could "one and two" still refer to the mass graves?Also no.

If "one and two" referred to the mass graves, the sentence structure makes no sense.

It amounts to this sentence: "The people buried in the two big mass graves one and two". That would amount to Hoess aimlessly repeating himself.

e) "Dugout" is not a synonym of "grave" or even "pit".And as has already been pointed out, the mass graves are clearly differentiated from the dugouts (the mass graves belong to the dugouts).The dugouts were the killing places, whereas the mass graves were the burial places.People were killed in the dugouts and buried in the mass graves, so the mass graves were "of" the dugouts.

From Draper's interrogation of Hoess 30.04.46, p.1 & 2 [you even quote from page 2 of this document!]:

"DRAPER: The subject is upon the statement of Otto Wilhelm Moll, dated April 29, 1946.

(Rudolf Hoess read the statement thru and makes the following reservations.)

1. Hoess first detailed Moll to work on exhuming mass graves in the winter of 1941 and Moll worked worked on this task for several months.

2. Approximately 105,000 to 106,000 bodies were exhumed and burned from these mass graves in Auschwitz.

3. The order of the burning of these bodies came in two parts:

(a) A general order from the burning from the Reichfueherer himself.

(b) A special order from Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann from the Jews Ampt. 4. RSHA

4. The detail included the following classes:

(a) Russian P.W.'s.

(b) Ordinary prisoners from the K-3

(c) Gassed prisoners

5. Professor Grawitz, the head S.S. Director for the Reich was there at the burning on one occasion, but he never gave orders for the burning."

"Approximately 105,000 to 106,000", virtually the same figures Hoess mentioned two weeks earlier during the joint interrogation when responding to a Moll comment on his task of exhuming bodies from mass graves and burning them:

HOESS: "It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people."

Seregy: "Excavations are completely irrelevant,"

No, excavations are what Hoess was talking about. "Dugouts" was clearly the term given to the excavated mass graves during the action; "one" and "two" being the largest of them.

You've quoted-mined and misrepresented the text. Do the decent thing and admit your error.

"HOESS: "It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people."

Anyone who reads this sentence with honesty and deduces that he is referring to the dugouts (i.e Bunkers) as mass graves is simply retarded. First, the numbers mentioned in his description are different from the numbers mentioned on page 1 and 2 of the draper interrogation. Second, the wording itself makes clear that the Dugouts and the excavated mass graves are mutually exclusive concepts and therefore separate.

The wording is clear: mass graves of the so called dugouts, or alternatively, mass graves belonging to the so called dugouts. The graves are related to the dugouts, but they aren't the dugouts themselves.

It's telling that a Russian National like Sergey has a better grasp of English than an alleged Englishman like the Black retard. Only idiots become Holocaust deniers.

> No, excavations are what Hoess was talking about. "Dugouts" was clearly the term given to the excavated mass graves during the action; "one" and "two" being the largest of them.

ROFL. You've finally woken up and this is the best you could come up with? You've literally ignored *everything* I wrote above. If you think that simply reasserting your original position without addressing the objections is how it works... well, you're wrong.

And you haven't even presented any new evidence. There is nothing in the excerpt you've quoted that establishes the equivalence of the "dugouts" and the "graves".That 100K corpses were exhumed from the mass graves and burned is a well-known fact (well, claim). Nobody disputes that Hoess made that claim about the graves. Duh.Just as well-known is that the graves belonged to the bunkers in the sense that most victims lying there were murdered in the bunkers (plus some in Au. I, plus a smaller number of natural death cases).

Here is the context you are ignoring (and yes, this is from Poland):

"During the spring of 1942 we were still dealing with small police actions. But during the summer the transports became more numerous and we were forced to build another extermination site. The farm area west of Crematories IV and V, which were built later, was chosen and prepared. Five barracks were built, two near Bunker I and three near Bunker II. Bunker II was the larger one. It held about 1,200 people. As late as the summer of 1942 the bodies were still buried in mass graves. Not until the end of the summer of 1942 did we start burning them. At first we put two thousand bodies on a large pile of wood. Then we opened up the mass graves and burned the new bodies on top of the old ones from the earlier burials. At first we poured waste oil over the bodies. Later on we used methanol. The burning went on continuously - all day and all night. By the end of November all the mass graves were cleared. The number of buried bodies in the mass graves was 107,000. This number contains not only the first Jewish transports which were gassed when we started the burnings, but also the bodies of the prisoners who died in the main Auschwitz camp during the winter of 1941-42 because the crematory was out of order. The prisoners who died at Birkenau are included in that number."

Oh wait. You didn't know the basic fact that the bunkers' victims were not always immediately incinerated? Oh snap.

> You've quoted-mined and misrepresented the text. Do the decent thing and admit your error.

Nathan: "The wording is clear: mass graves of the so called dugouts, or alternatively, mass graves belonging to the so called dugouts. The graves are related to the dugouts, but they aren't the dugouts themselves."

Incorrect, as you would know if you read the context in which that statement was made; instead of relying of Sergey's quote-mined and misrepresented version.

Hoess was RESPONDING to what Moll said about the EXCAVATION of the mass graves. Sergey left that out, and when challenged, hilariously claimed "Excavations are completely irrelevant".

MOLL: When I was in charge of these excavations, as I told you about before, together with another comrade, which was confirmed by Hoess today, we put between 30,000 and 40,000 people in those mass graves. It was the most terrible work that could be carried out by any human being.

BROOKHART: Stick to the figures.

MOLL: I don't know who those people were or how they got there. I only excavated the mass graves. I was responsible for burning the bodies right there.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO RUDOLF HOESS:

BROOKHART: How does that figure strike you, Hoess?

HOESS: It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people.

The wording is indeed clear: "one and two" were the biggest of the mass graves that were excavated in Birkenau. These excavated mass graves were collectively referred to as the "dugouts" during the action of excavating them.

Nathan: "It's telling that a Russian National like Sergey has a better grasp of English than an alleged Englishman like the Black retard. Only idiots become Holocaust deniers."

If that's the case, you're more than qualified to become a HDnr.

Read the context in which Hoess made the statement i.e and exchange with Moll. Don't just rely on the ripped-from-its-context version Sergey provided.

"the alleged Englishman mangling his own language:"MOLL: I don't know who those people were or how they got there. I only excavated the mass graves. I was responsible for burning the bodies right there. HOESS: It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people." "

I really don't see the Rabbit's point. Moll is talking about Mass graves, and Hoess is talking about the mass graves of, belonging to, or associated with So called dugouts. They're not meant to refer to the dugouts themselves.

I almost pity the Rabbit. He hates either the Jews or HC so much that he is reduced to nitpicking and twisting his own alleged language.

> The wording is indeed clear: "one and two" were the biggest of the mass graves that were excavated in Birkenau. These excavated mass graves were collectively referred to as the "dugouts" during the action of excavating them.

This is not only obviously untrue, it has been debunked in detail above. Your reading is dishonest and delusional. Hoess clearly refers to dugouts one and two, the killing places to which the mass graves belonged.

PS: The excavations are irrelevant because nobody has ever denied that Hoess was speaking about excavations of mass graves. The quote I provided in 2009 speaks of mass graves. It's a given. Nobody disputes that. It's just another of the Rabbit's red herrings.

It is in fact pretty astonishing that a native speaker would fail to understand the meaning of two such simple sentences.

"The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts[;] one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people.""Moll, in my opinion, cannot possibly have any idea of the number of killings in the dugouts where he was working and responsible."

What does "one and two" refer to?

1. Is it a stand-in for "two big mass graves" in an independent clause separated by a semicolon? Was it "one and two" that "amounted" to 100K people?

Clearly no, since a) the part separated by the semicolon does not work as an indepedent clause (and neither does the first part of the sentence, which then simply "hangs in the air"), so the semicolon is a mistake.b) Moreover, :amounted" is separated from "one and two" by a comma, so it cannot refer to "one and two".

2. Does it refer to "the two big mass graves", as in "The people buried in the two big mass graves one and two amounted to..."?

Clearly no, since we can't simply ignore that there's quite a distance between "one and two" and "graves", a distance of "of the so—called dugouts". That's simply not a natural way to name the graves' numbers.The only natural way would be this: "The people buried in the two big mass graves one and two of the so-called dugouts".

Moreover, "two big mass graves ... one and two" is quite a superfluous sentence and there is no evidence whatsoever that the graves had even been assigned any numbers, not a single testimony supports this, whereas the bunkers were assigned numbers one and two.

It follows then that "one and two" could only have referred to the word "dugouts". There was dugout one and dugout two.

3. The dugouts were the places in which killings took place: "killings in the dugouts". They were thus, in context, not mass graves, since Hoess never alleged that killings took place inside the mass graves. He did however allege that they took place inside bunkers one and two.

4. The mass graves were "of the so-called dugouts", i.e. belonged to the dugouts, i.e. were not the dugouts.

5. "Dugout" was never used to refer to mass graves in Auschwitz, whereas "dugout" is one of the direct translations of the German "Bunker", which was used to refer to gas chambers, specifically to the bunker one and two.

All of these points are intiutively clear to any knowledgeable sane person reading this testimony.

Bullshit. Your entire character is based on nitpicking and "debunking" photos, a simple scan of the image and a cursory search would have proven its true origins. But that's not what you did. You are stuck in a cul de-sac right now: your options are as follows - admit to willingly deceiving the viewers of your silly video, or admit to being an imbecile who used the wrong materiel out of ignorance. Either way your KLL thesis is in tatters and your credibility is ruined.

Bendel testified in French at the Belsen trial [transcript 01.10.45, p.2]. He probably testified in French at the Tesch trial too, because during his testimony at the IG-F trial he points out some errors in a German translation of his testimony at the Tesch trial[transcript p.9587]. He almost certainly testified at the IG-F trial in French as well [see transcript p.9587].

> By your logic, just because two old farmhouses are converted into homicidal gas chambers, doesn't mean they can be referred to as bunkers.

It is true that semantically both hypotheses have a similarly low prior probability.

Thing is, in the case of the gas chambers this low prior probability is overcome by the documented brute fact of usage of this term for these two gas chambers (as well for others) independently of Hoess' testimony.

Whereas you have no evidence to overcome the low prior probability of your hypothesis since your hypothesis is purely ad hoc.

> As I pointed out previously, these are almost precisely the same figures mentioned in Hoess' contentious statement during the dual interrogation a fortnight earlier.

You're running around with this fact like a dog with a bone, but nobody is disputing it.

> Now consider:

> - Bunker 1 went into operation in Mar-May of 1942.> - Bunker 2 went into operation in June of 1942.

> Yet according to Sergey and Nathan, Hoess said Moll was excavating the mass graves of Bunkers 1 & 2 several months before he had even converted the farmhouses and started gassing people in them!

1. "When the exterminations started in 1941, I took Moll as a subordinate leader for one of these farm buildings".

https://www.fold3.com/image/231901566

IOW, you are comparing apples and oranges.

If you are using the (more or less) mainstream chronology of the Bunkers, you must also compare it with the mainstream chronology of the exhumations, in which they took place in autumn of 1942.If you are using Hoess' internal (and notoriously skewed) chronology, you should compare it with Hoess' chronology. In which case you will also find contradictions (e.g. in the later testimonies set, from which I quoted above, the burnings did not start until Sep. 1942).

But Hoess' early dating of the Bunkers is also pretty well-known. In his late Final Solution essay he plays with the possibility that the destruction of the Jews in the bunkers began as early as September 1941 (though then he says "or perhaps not until January 1942").

2. Note that the graves could predate the bunkers and still be retroactively called "of the bunkers". For a simple reason that the bunkers' death toll would dwarf all the previous natural death and smaller killing actions pretty quickly.